Morning Joe - Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) joins Morning Joe

Episode Date: August 4, 2026

August 4, 2026: 8 am — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) joins Morning Joe  To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

These people were treated horribly, and this fund could have given them some solace, but, you know, it happens to be very popular among many quarters. And I don't participate in that fund. I was certainly treated badly. I don't participate, but I thought it would be very fair for people that spent years in prison, people that were treated so badly, for in many cases people that did absolutely nothing wrong. So I view that fund as a positive, and a lot of Republicans do to not so many Democrats. From the sound of it, President Trump is not giving up on the nearly $1.8 billion fund that could be used to pay January 6th insurrectionists, the people who attacked the Capitol and police officers that day. We'll bring you expert legal analysis on the loopholes in the memos from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche as he faces a vote today. Also yesterday, the president calling out Janine Piro, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., after she told the truth in court documents about what caused the

damage to that reflecting pool. And we'll go through new reporting on a potential major development in the Middle East as Iran may have a deal to take complete control over the Strait of Hormuz. Plus, it is primary day in several states. We'll break down the big races, including the closely watched Democratic primary in Michigan for a U.S. Senate seat that could tell us a lot about the state of the Democratic Party. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It's Tuesday, August 4th. With me this morning, the co-house of our 8 a.m. hour. Staff ready at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, Politics Bureau Chief and Senior Political Columnists of Politico, Jonathan Martin, MS Now, Senior White House Reporter Vaughan Hilliard, and MS now, Senior Legal

Reporter Lisa Rubin, with a lot to get through. So let's dive right in this morning. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on advancing Todd Blanche's nomination to become attorney general on a permanent basis. It appears President Trump's former personal attorney now has the support he needs after he issued a pair of orders late Sunday night, rescinding the president's $1.776 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund. Blanche's order also clarified the president's settlement with the IRS for tax audit immunity for Trump and his family members that it only applies to claims open at the time

of the settlement and does not protect the president. president or his family from future tax filings. Those two one-page memos from Blanche were enough to win the support now of Republican senators John Cornyn of Texas and Tom Tillis of North Carolina, who had blocked the confirmation vote because of that fund. The senators put out a joint statement yesterday writing, quote, from the outset, we were clear that we needed a written document addressing our concerns. The senators go on to write, we want to express our gratitude to Mr. Blanche and his staff for working with us on this, and we look forward to voting to advance his nomination.

Yesterday, MS Now White House reporter Jake Trailer asked the president about Blanche's memos. Mr. President, did he sign on on Todd Blanche? I didn't look at it. All I know is that Todd Blanche is great. He's going to do a great job. Everybody knows it. And I understand there's been a sign-off.

But I didn't know what they agreed. I think Todd Blanche agreed to. reconfirmed things that he's already said, and what he said was okay. But this morning, there are concerns about legal loopholes the president could use to restore that taxpayer fund of nearly $1.8 billion. Okay, Lisa, that's a lot to comb through right there. Effectively, Todd Blanche, who looks like he's going to now make it throughout the Judiciary Committee at the very least and could become the next Attorney General of the United States,

put out these memos to kind of assuage the two senators, Tom Tillis, And John Corner, now they say, we're good. Thanks for the written memos. But when you dig into what he actually wrote in those memos, what do you see? I see a lot of possibility left for the president to restore the anti-weaponization fund. Let's start, Willie, with the fact the anti-weaponization fund is a creation of a settlement agreement between President Trump, the IRS, and the Department of Justice. And nothing that Todd Blanche did yesterday eviscerates or even modifies that settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement obligates the Attorney General to create. the anti-weaponization fund. Todd Blanche, of course, did so through an order in May. Yesterday, he rescinded that, but there's nothing that would preclude him from doing it all over again. These orders of the Attorney General, they are at best department policy. But at worst, this is really nothing more than like me scribbling something on a napkin, handing it to you and you saying that it has the force of a binding written order, which is how Senators Tillis and Cornyn characterized it yesterday.

that may be a political tool for them to sort of force Todd Blanche into a corner where he can't revive it at a later point in time. But as you and I both know, with Cornyn and Tillis, leaving the Senate after the expiration of this year, their ability to enforce that binding written order, which is not a binding document or an order, is very limited. And that's J-Mart, just to go to you for a minute on this. That's what's so mystifying about these two guys anyway, who are leaving town, effectively run out of office, in John Cornyn's case by President Trump. He basically said, just give me something I can go on so I can vote for Todd Blanche. He doesn't need to protect himself politically.

This chapter of his political career is over anyway. And yet he appears satisfied by this memo, which as Lisa and others have pointed out, really does nothing to stop President Trump from bringing it back. Why did these two senators go along for the ride on this? I think there's an impulse to be team players. And Willie, that current runs so deep in the Senate, and especially with party regulars like Tillis and Corn, and they don't want to be iconic class. They don't want to do Trump any favors necessarily. But I think that, you know, they believe that they've gotten something now that they can hold up to block this from happening, at least for the next year.

And that this is good enough for them to walk back into their Senate luncheons with their party and say they're not. trying to be obstructionist. They're trying to be constructive, but at the same time protect the rule of law and precedent. You and I know that Trump doesn't give to, you know, what's about whatever is on that piece of paper, Willie, but it's cover for two senators who are trying to be team players, even on the way out. Yeah, I mean, John, we know when we heard it from the president's remarks yesterday how he feels about this so-called anti-weaponization fund. He feels people were wrong, even though they were convicted by juries of their peers in many cases. I don't think there's a lot of doubt that President Trump, with his personal attorney, sitting as Attorney General, will work to revive this

and quickly. No, he's made it clear that he will. And in recent days, it seemed like he was prioritizing the fund in these IRS protections, even over Blanche's confirmation. He had threatened he was willing to walk away from Blanche, leaving in the acting role, so he had gotten him in there anyway, you know, in order to protect these things. And even when yesterday, as Blanche sort of signs these documents, you know, Trump is still in the Oval saying, hey, we want to be my, I still think this is a good idea. Many people are saying it. So Lisa, there's also, of course, the IRS part of this, which I think outraged many.

And Tillis and Cornyn were not the only Republicans who expressed some misgivings about that. But the way this has been written, you have noted it can be changed, right? That there's some flexibility to this document to the IRS protections going forward. And it's hard to imagine that Trump would want to let this go as he stares at his post-political life in 2029 and beyond, when theoretically, there's a Democrat in the White House, a Democrat Department of Justice, a Democrat Internal Revenue Service, and he's going to want as much protection as he can for him, his son's his business. Yeah, let's contrast this with the court of killing of the anti-weaponization fund, which can

be revived. That may have holes in it right and left, but this is even worse, Jonathan, because the way in which the tax immunity was granted in the first place is through a one-page order of the Attorney General. And it has some really stark language in there that releases the plaintiffs to the Trump IRS lawsuit. That's Donald Trump, his two adult sons, Don Jr. and Eric, and the Trump organization from certain tax liability. But it also releases people who are related or affiliated individuals I'm reading from the

order right now, including without limitation, family or others filing jointly. Now let's flash forward to yesterday where Todd Blanche through an unsigned thing that looks like a press release is saying, my interpretation of this is that it only applies to the main parties. That is be lied by the plain text of what he signed on May 19. So anybody who walked away thinking that this immunity was narrowed yesterday and anything remotely resembling an efficacious way is diluting themselves, diluting their constituents, and lying to the American people. And posting memos on X does not constitute binding orders. As you've pointed out, could be easily unwound. More on the legal front. President Trump, not happy this morning.

with U.S. Attorney Janine Piro after her decision to drop charges against a former Olympian accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, Piro filed the motion to dismiss the charges against David Hearn last Friday. After prosecutors concluded the damage attributed to the former Olympian actually stemmed from defects in the installation of the Reflecting Poole's liner as part of that shoddy $16 million renovation. Here's what President Trump said yesterday about Piro's decision. I think she choked because the judge was really

vicious. Instead of going after the people that did it, the judge went after her and went after her department. And I guess she choked. I don't know what the hell happened. I was disappointed with Gene Pirore. Really disappointed

with Jeanette Piro. She folded like an umbrella and people get away with things and it's a disgrace. And she was called into the principal's office after that. More on that in the moment. CBS, meanwhile, has new reporting this morning on federal prosecutors in Peiro's office, moving to dismiss three misdemeanor cases against people who were also accused of damaging the pool.

Piro was spotted leaving the White House yesterday, carrying a rolling briefcase and a large white box. No word on what was inside. But the New York Times reports, Piro has not been fired by Trump, nor did she offer her resignation during that meeting with the president. That's according to two people briefed on that meeting. The Times also reports Interior Secretary Doug Bergam was at that meeting, and he continues to defend Trump's claims of vandalism at the reflecting pool without providing any evidence.

Vaughn Hillier, I can't believe we're still talking about the reflecting pool, but we are. Judge Piro likely, Janine Piro likely, dismiss the charges for lack of evidence coming out of her office, which is the case and a couple of others as CBN. is reporting this morning as well, that this Olympian says he saw a piece of something floating in the reflecting pool, reached down to touch it, and let it go when he was told to do so, and now he's being charged with vandalism. Those charges dropped. Why is this such a sticky issue for the president of the United States? Outside of it being a national monument and such a key place that represents Washington, D.C. in so many ways, Willie, I think that all of us

have to look at this through a very clear lens. And that is, that the president has no patience for literally anybody here as we approach the end of 2026. If he is willing to turn on Janine Piro, he is willing to turn on quite literally anybody in this administration. If you go back to Janine Piro after the 2020 election, in documents that were revealed as part of the defamation lawsuit by Smartmatic and Dominion voting, one Fox executive said that Janine Piro was, quote, a reckless maniac. Another executive said that she had a tendency to find random conspiracy. theories on weird internet sites. And in so many ways, fast forward six years later, Donald Trump

is not demanding loyalty anymore. That's not the bar. It's more than loyalty. It is actual results. And that is where he grew frustrated with Pam Bondi. You can bring an indictment against James Comey. And you can bring an indictment against Letitia James. But unless that they are in jail, like he depicted in social media posts after social media posts over the years, it's not good enough. You can go and indict David Hearn for allegations of ripping up the reflecting pool after a $16 million shoddy job by a contractor that he handpicked. But unless you get that man in jail, it's not good enough. And that is the difficult reality that everybody in this administration is now watching. Everybody in the cabinet, unless you deliver for the president, even if it is on conspiracy theories that are not rooted in any evidence, that you have to somehow deliver for him.

And I think that is going to be really difficult here over the next two years for an administration to grapple with as he continues to lose power in just 27 months left of his own presidency. I mean, Lisa, if you take this under normal circumstances, you have a U.S. attorney in Washington, Judge Piro, Justice DePiro. I don't know why I keep calling her Judge Piro. That was her former title. Janine Piro, that, you know, looked at evidence in her office, saw that this guy, David Herne, the former Olympian, did not commit a crime and dismissed the charges. and yet this is elevated to a national issue. What do you see in all this? Well, I see a pox on two houses, Doug Bergum's and Janine Perra. So on one hand, yes, we can praise Janine Perro for doing the right thing by moving to dismiss the case.

On the other hand, there was a rush to indict Davey Hearn to begin with. Had the U.S. Attorney's Office done a thorough investigation and looked at internal communications among and between Department of Interior people, people at the National Park Service, the U.S. Park Police, they would have seen the same evidence that she now has told a judge, makes it difficult, if not impossible for her to convict Davy Hearn on a felony. To be clear, U.S. Attorney's Office isn't saying Davey Hearn didn't touch the bottom of the reflecting pool. They're not saying that he didn't commit that aspect of the crime that he, you know, reached in with intent. What they're saying is they can't prove that he caused more than $1,000 worth of damage.

Why? Because internally at the Department of Interior, there were all these conversations about the flawed installation and the fact that the no-bid contractor here was responsible. And that leads me to Doug Bergam. The fact that he is not recognizing what the people under his own command are saying and doing and yet doubling down and faulting Janine Piro for this, the sort of Game of Thrones, this way is a very nice way to go sort of Wizard of Oz like dialogue between people in the Trump administration is not constructive for the rule of law. It's not constructive for democracy. It's not even constructive for the running of this White House according to the principles by which it lives as Vaughn just laid out. Coming up, Republican Senator Rand Paul will be our guest. We'll talk to him about his criticism of the war with Iran, his questions about COVID for Dr. Anthony Fauci, and much more. You're watching morning, Joe. We'll be right back. Beautiful live picture, the United States Capitol at 821 on this Tuesday morning.

President Trump is lashing out against leaders in Iran as the two sides give mixed messages about the state of negotiations, potentially to end the war. On true social yesterday, the president wrote that Iranian officials, are, quote, unbelievably duplicitous after Tehran contradicted his claim that negotiations had resumed. Later yesterday in the Oval Office, the president warned Iran has, quote, one last chance to sign a deal. Many countries called, many, the leaders have made up friendly with a lot of them, almost all of them, one way or the other, and they all wanted to give this a last chance. This is a last chance. This is not something that, if it doesn't happen, This is a last chance for them to sign a good document.

Where are the Iran talks? And what are your requirements right now? Are they going to go quickly? One way or the other. It's not very complex. We're talking about the straight, the opening of the straight, having it open literally by tomorrow, completely open. And that's phase one. And phase two is we then will talk about the nuclear capacity, the nuclear, what, you know,

know, as we've been mentioned, that basically, it's, I think, most act, the denuclearization of Iran has to happen, has to happen, and that'll be the second phase. Would Iran be willing to return to fully free navigation of it? It has to be. I'm not going to let him charge. Then everybody's going to charge, we'll charge. We're the one that has total control. We have total control. You know, we have a thing called a blockade with his navy, and that navy is, They call it a wall of steel, the United States wall of steel. And no, no, this is not going to be charging.

We're not talking about charging at all. They won't be charging. Despite that assertion for the present, the New York Times reports this morning. Iran and Oman are closing in on an agreement to reopen shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, which vessels heading into the Persian Gulf will transit a channel controlled by Iran, while ships leaving the Gulf will travel on a channel near Oman. A service fee, as they're calling. it would be charged to cover the environmental impact of the shipping, security for the cargo

ships and tankers, and for staffing. Revenues, Iranian officials say, would be divided equally between Iran and Oman. Let's bring in now Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. He's chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, thanks so much for joining us this morning. A lot to talk to you about, but let's start with Iran. You've been consistent from the very beginning and really since before this war, too, that The War Powers Act must be brought back into American public, into the conversation around these wars. You've proposed this resolution to get Congress its say back in what the president can and cannot do in a war. Where does that fight stand?

Well, even more importantly, before you get to the War Powers Act is the Constitution itself. The Constitution says that the Declaration of War, the initiation of war, is a vote of Congress. There's a big debate in the Constitutional Convention. all of our founding fathers from Hamilton to Jefferson agreed they didn't want this power in the hands of one person. So really there needs to be a vote. But there's also the advisability of the war. This is a war of choice and it wouldn't have been my choice. I think if you look at it objectively, you know, one step forward, we decimated their military,

but two steps backwards in that they've militarized the strait. The strait has never been militarized. And I think really no negotiations go forward until you can get a demilitarization of the strait. and you will still have to negotiate to get any nuclear achievement despite the military victory. So I think that really by any objective viewing are worse off now than we were before the war. So then with that in mind, Senator, I think a lot of people in this country would agree with you on that assertion. What is the best possible outcome at this point for the United States? What's the best way out of this war?

The sooner the war ends the better, and there are a lot of alternatives. is if you still want to strive for your objective, and it's hard for people who begin a massive war and have spent tens of billions of dollars on this bombing campaign, it will be very hard for them to leave and not try to get their goal. One goal would be removal, and it's a noble goal, removal of the enriched uranium. If they could get that, they could really go a long way toward saying, well, gosh, it was justified. We got rid of their enriched uranium. But the only way you'll do that is you have to negotiate. So there are many hardliners in our administration that do not want any negotiation.

They're the ones that trash any kind of talk of a settlement because they say, we're not going to negotiate with these terrorists, we're not going to negotiate with this regime. We have to have regime change. But short of regime change, which doesn't seem to be occurring, you will have to negotiate. So I am a big believer that sanctions are of absolutely no value unless you exchange them for something.

So it's release of sanctions that gets behavioral change. We have 26,000 sanctions on Russia. They're going to put more on. this week. It doesn't do anything to Russia. We have thousands on with Iran. If you want Iran's behavior to change, you have to trade them, relief of sanctions for a behavior. So frankly, if they would release and have the 440 kilograms of enriched uranium leave the country, I would have significant, very significant relief of trade sanctions, and they would be dependent one upon another, and you wouldn't have to worry about whether they're telling the truth or not, because it would be

the removal of something that physically would happen. So I think there is possibility for a peace, but there are some in my party that don't want any peace and want it to go on until there's a regime change. And I think that could be a long time. So, Senator, you've made clear you didn't agree with the war. You do not think it's been a success. So in its aftermath, when it does end, whenever that might be, where does that leave the United States? The reports of our munitions supply has been dramatically reduced, really dwindled, our ability to defend our interests around the globe, but also a projection of weakness to the United States. rest of the world to Russia, to China, because the United States here might be leaving the Middle

East with Iran strengthened in its control over the Strait of Hormuz and the hardliners power in Tehran. I think the one thing that is without question when you see our military might and the execution of it that nobody can touch us, we are unparalleled. Doesn't mean we can end every conflict around the world or that we should intervene, but we are unparalleled. We will have to replenish our stores over time, but the immediate vote that will come up for us very soon, to me is essentially a proxy vote for continuing the war. And so I'm not much for

spending another $200 billion without offsetting. If they're willing to cut spending, somewhere else I'll consider it. But just to add more to the debt, I think makes us weaker. I actually think the national debt is a greater threat than any threat of foreign invasion to our country. I think it's from within. It's the rot from within. It's the devaluation of our currency. and it's frankly the chance to be an economic panic at some point because we're so far over-extended. Senator, how do you pull back? How do we as a country? How does Congress pull back its power to declare war? I mean, I'm thinking back 25 years now to the AUMF after 9-11. Your father, Congressman Ron Paul, voted for that, but didn't want that used for Iraq a year later. And here we are with these blanket declarations of war.

How do we return to that constitutional responsibility? I think the interesting thing is presidents of both parties have been abusing executive power. But even George Bush, who was heavily criticized by myself, my father and others for the wars he got us involved with, he actually did come to Congress. There was an authorization of the military force. You're right for the Afghan war and for the Iraq war. And so that's at least trying to obey the Constitution. Now, I've had the debate with this administration and, you know, the Office of Legal Counsel is the Apologist for the President.

for executive power, whether they're Republican or Democrat. That's their job. But they told me this isn't a war. And I said, well, why isn't it a war? And they said, well, a constitutional war has to have significant casualties. And I said, well, then we would have to wait until the war is over to count up our dead to decide that we weren't in favor of initiating the war. Initiation or declaration of wars before the casualties. But the way they define it is, you know, Venezuela wasn't a war because not many Americans died. And so I asked the Secretary of State. I said, well, what if they bombed the U.S. Capitol in the United States, bomb our air defenses, abduct our president, and remove him from the country? Would that be war? And as much as I'm anti-war, I'll vote to go to war if someone attacks our capital.

So it is war. And we can't say it's not war when we do it, but it is war when somebody else does it. Because I think that doesn't, at rings hollow worldwide, but also rings hollow for those of us who would like to avoid a necessary war. A lot of people agree with you that power needs to be restored. Senator, want to turn to your questioning last week in front of that committee of Dr. Anthony Fauci. He pled the fifth agreement more than a hundred times in response to your questions and those of others on the panel. Were you surprised that he came in with that approach or did you expect that? We didn't know what to expect. We were debating it that morning whether he would testify or not.

I think he could have testified honestly. If he was worried about saying that he destroyed records. He has a pardon for that. So he did destroy a lot of records. We think, and we're still going to look at this, but we think hundreds, if not thousands of records were destroyed, that it was a routine practice by him. We have his executive assistant saying, I destroyed a ton of records this weekend, a ton of emails this weekend. If he would admit it to that, he wouldn't have had culpability. He just had just, and he could even justify it. He could even say, oh, well, I didn't think they were important. I didn't think they were government records. He could make all kinds of excuses. They probably wouldn't be acceptable to me, but I think

he could have escaped legal culpability. And unfortunately, I think for him, the country and history will remember him as pleading the fifth 111 times, and it didn't look good. And there are arguments on both side of every debate. But the biggest thing is, I want people to understand that it's a bad idea to fund dangerous research. It was a particularly bad idea to fund this in China. and this wasn't a one-off. Anthony Fauci has been one of the probably most famous advocates of this gain of function research going back to when they manipulated the avian flu in 2010. Manipulating the avian flu, which has a 50% death rate, to make it more infectious to mammals,

is a death wish for the world, and there needs to be a debate about this. Open without politics, a debate about whether we should fund manipulating animal viruses to make them more infectious to humans. I think it is something really that we need to look at, if we're looking at nuclear weapons and trying to prevent nuclear war. And people really wanted answers out of that hearing. I mean, there's still an open question and some dispute about how this COVID-19 virus that killed 1.2 million Americans, how it came to be and how the next one can be prevented. But part of the reason that Dr. Fauci and his team

said they came in with the approach of pleading the fifth is because they had heard specifically from you time and again that you wanted Dr. Fauci to be jailed. Here's a little of what you've over the years. Bouches should go to prison for five years for lying to Congress. They've prosecuted other people. They've selectively gone after Republicans, but in no way they do anything about him lying. It's a felony, punishable of five years in jail. We've referred to the Department of Justice.

I don't think Biden's Department of Justice will do anything with it. But yes, it is very dangerous to have public officials who we need to have trust in coming and lying to us. But he has lied dozens of time. believe that Anthony Fauci belongs in jail? Without question. Senator, the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote this week, Mr. Paul is too

said on criminalizing policy differences in our view, and Dr. Fauci does not belong in jail on evidence that we have seen. Do you still believe that Dr. Anthony Fauci should go to prison? I'll give you an example of the level of dishonesty. In January of

2020, as the epidemic was just coming to our shores, he received private information and he agreed with it that the epidemic didn't start in the wet market. The wet market was a super spreader event, but the original people who were sick from COVID were not associated with the wet market. But because the wet market is an argument for a natural occurrence, he continued to argue that for year and year, but he wasn't telling us that he privately disagreed with himself. He also said in January 2020, he said that we are worried that this virus has been manipulated because we know they do gain.

of function research. So when he says, oh, we never funded gain and function research in private, he was very worried that they were doing this research. Now, he would argue that our money didn't go to it, but I would argue that you really shouldn't be funding a lab that you're worried that they are doing gain and function research. So should he go to prison for that senator? Well, that's a good question. Did he lie to Congress? I think he did lie to Congress. And I think to be fair that people who lie to Congress should be charged with a felony and if convicted, go to jail. There's also the question of destroying records. That's also a felony crime. So I think both destroying records and lying to Congress are serious crimes. But the reason is, and what I've always

wanted more than, you know, whether he goes to jail or not, is the truth and an understanding from the public that this research is so dangerous that it has to have intense scrutiny that I think in all likelihood refunded a lab and this virus came from the lab and maybe 15 million people died. This isn't the first time. This happened in 1977. We have virtually absolute proof in 1977 that a virus leaked out and infected the whole world and influenza virus. So, Senator, certainly, though, there were many, Walter Journal Board, included who thought that was an opportunity that hearing to get more answers in it instead devolved into what it was. But one of your criticisms of Dr. Fauci is that in your estimation,

he said one thing publicly, where he sort of downplayed the virus and one thing privately, where he acknowledged, you know, its seriousness. Well, President Trump did the exact same thing that he told the American people there, January, February, March 2020, that this was something that would blow over. While we know, because he had transcripts and audio recordings with calls with Bob Woodward,

the journalist, where he said to Mr. Woodward, this is far more serious. So does President Trump deserve that same level of scrutiny as you want Dr. Fauci to face? You know, I think the main culpability of Dr. Fauci is that he advocated for a decade before this, the funding of these labs. He funded a lab in the Netherlands that mutated the avian flu and made it more dangerous. The whole scientific community, led by a scientist at MIT, set up this Cambridge

Working Group and were very, very critical, said it shouldn't have been funded and it shouldn't have been published. There are people who are nonpartisan. There's a Stanford professor by the name of David Relman who advises government, is very knowledgeable in these affairs, and said that the research in the Netherlands on the avian flu should have never occurred. So he has made mistake after mistake. And the idea or the decision to fund this dangerous research in China, I think may be one of the worst, if not the worst medical public health decision in a lifetime. Well, Senator, along that line then, in your argument, should everyone involve this sort of research, this gain of function research, should they all, all these people face, you know,

potential criminal investigation? I think they should all, um, apologize. And I think they all are culpable in many ways, maybe not legally. For example, the research project from 2018 called D-E-F-U-S-E was to take a coronavirus and insert a fur and cleavage site. That is very similar to what COVID looks like. That was to be funded by our government. It never was. But when COVID came out and they saw the structure of COVID, they should have said, oh, my goodness, this is just like the research project that we looked at and rejected because it was too dangerous two years ago. No one said a word.

There's got to be 150 people that were in different meetings that knew about this. Ralph Barrett knew about it. He was a lead investigator. He says he never told Fauci. Fauci says he never received this. They all had to know. But Fauci also knew that he'd been funding the lab. One of the first emails he gets from his assistant in January 2020 is an email that says,

gain of function research in Wuhan. They were labeling if that was. way. Eco health that was getting the money from NIH and sending it to Wuhan, they put in one of their letters when their funding started up again, thank you for restarting our gain of function research. They were all calling at that. So the level of dishonesty here is astonishing, but it wasn't a mistake. It was because Fauci had a conflict of interest. His conflict of interest is he knew he funded this, and he knew if it came from the lab, that there would be a culpability attached. So he argued for the natural origin, not because he objectively thought so, but it was better for him.

The senator, I guess the bigger question a lot of people have as they listen to this debate in this conversation is, are you suggesting something nefarious from Dr. Anthony Fauci? There were things that made a lot of us mad and in hindsight make us even more mad, that schools were closed too long, that six feet apart may have been some kind of arbitrary number, that little kids didn't need to wear two masks to go to the playground. But all of that is after the fact in the fog of war. Are you suggesting that Dr. Fauci made mistakes, which I'm sure he would concede he did, or that there's something nefarious behind his actions? I would say it's wrongheaded. I'm not sure I would use the words nefarious. I would say that he is of the belief that the common

man can't handle the truth and that people like him who are the science, the elite, and the experts should make decisions. So many of his decisions about masks, he originally said you didn't need to wear them, which is probably the bulk of the truth from most of the studies. Cochran analysis looked at 78 different studies in a meta study, and that's what their conclusion was. But when he told us that, he also then explained why he said masks don't work. So there was a shortage. And I was just telling people that because it was a practical way of saving them for the doctors.

So he was telling us noble lies, platonic lies, because he's one of the philosopher kings. So it really is about an attitude, but it is an arrogance, and it isn't arrogance that shouldn't go unchallenged. Certainly, though, there are many who feel Dr. Fauci devoted decades of his lives to public service and public health. Senator, Paul, before we go, though, I want to switch to a couple of other topics. One being Todd Blanche, who appears to be on the verge of being confirmed Attorney General, a couple of your Republican colleagues, Tillis and Cornyn stood in the way for a bit,

but now have suggested they will back off because of his promises about the weaponization fund, which you have criticized, as well as the IRS protections for President Trump and his family. We've had a number of legal and congressional experts say there are all kinds of loopholes in both of those documents. And President Trump has made clear in his public remarks this week that he still wants both of those things preserved. What is your level of concern that they could be revived? I think like a lot of people, it looked like self-dealing when the president or the administration susy IRS, then they become the administration and they settle with themselves. Most people had trouble understanding how that could be appropriate.

I think the senators did a good job trying to confirm more. There was a promise to get rid of the weaponization fund, but I think that promise is made more concrete by the actions in the last day or so by Todd Blanche. I'm not for the fund, so I'm not for having it be resurrected. And Senator Paul lastly, could you give us an update on the health and status of your colleague in the Senate, Mitch McConnell? It's been weeks, of course, since he has been able to serve or his office provide any update on how he is doing. Can you tell us how he's doing? Do you believe right now that the interests of the people of Kentucky are being well represented in the Senate?

You know, I don't have any private knowledge. I haven't spoken with him, and I've read the press releases, so I have as much knowledge as you do. He is getting older, and he's had many health problems in the last year. I think that's why he made the decision, you know, not to run for reelection. I've had many, many political and policy differences with him, but I guess I'm of the opinion that he's struggling and that he's trying to get better. And I just wish him well. There will be a new senator in three months.

I think he'll be back if there is a close vote, which might be good or bad for me, depending on what the issue is. But I do wish him well. I mean, you know, I try to, you know, we've had Democrat senators out for six months to a year with strokes, with severe injuries. So I am, I try to be open to giving people a little bit of break for, for health reasons. We hope he recovers as well. Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky covering a lot of ground force this morning. We really appreciate your time, Senator. Thank you. Thank you.

Still ahead. Former Special Counsel Jack Smith could once again be headed to Capitol Hill. We'll explain why next on Morning Joe. Former Special Counsel, Jack Smith, has been invited to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next month. Republican Senator and committee chair Chuck Grassley made the announcement last night in a social media host. This comes after Grassley revealed last October the Smith's Arctic Frost probe, which focused on attempts to overturn the 2020 election, sought 10 Republican senators' phone records. Then last month, Grassley said he was notified by the Department of Justice that Smith's team's secretly obtained lawmakers' text messages as part of an investigation into President Trump's alleged role in the January 6th Capitol attack, as well as the classified documents that were found

at Mar-a-Lago. Smith, of course, oversaw both cases, but they were each dropped following Trump's 2024 election victory. Elsewhere, as we've been previewing this morning, Michigan voters head to the polls today to decide one of the most closely watched Democratic primary battles in the country. It marks the end of a bruising and expensive intra-party fight between more moderate congressman Haley Stevens and progressive former Detroit Health Director Abdul El-Said. El-Said, who's barked by Senator Bernie Sanders, spent much of his campaign positioning himself against the establishment, while Stevens, who's backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, made her case based more on electability and experience.

We, of course, will have those results for you all day long and this evening here on MS now. And we'll be right back with more. Morning Joe. Live shot of the U.S. Capitol. And in just moments, the Senate Judiciary Committee will meet there to vote on advancing Todd Blanche's nomination to become attorney general on a permanent basis. I'm telling you this morning the path does look clear for him to be confirmed. Joining us now is Sky Paramount. She's president and CEO of Democracy Ford, a nonprofit legal organization that looks at.

to advance democracy through litigation, policy, and public education. Sky, good to see you again. You and your organization have raised some real warnings about some of the things we've heard from Blanche during these proceedings, including the support for weaponization fund, for these IRS protections for the president and his family and businesses. Now, Blanche made an agreement in recent days to put those aside, but we've heard from legal experts, and I believe you share this view that there are significant loopholes in these agreements, and they could easily be revived. Yeah, I mean, these are not really worth the paper.

They're written on. The reason the slush fund is not operating right now is because our team at Democracy Forward on behalf of brave plaintiffs, including a federal prosecutor, went to court and blocked the slush fund. That's why it's not operating. And Todd Blanche has refused,

the Department of Justice has refused in that case to sign documents under oath, stating that the slush fund will not go forward and that it will not ever go forward in the future. And so people really aren't fooled by this. It seems like yesterday some early media reports may have been fooled by it and maybe some Republican senators are fooled by it. But the American public and of course our clients and what we're seeing across the board, this is just clearly a way to try to rescue his confirmation, but it's not really going to provide any real guarantee

to the American people that their tax dollars won't be used for this political kickback scheme. Yeah. Poll certainly suggests this is an unpopular. idea. And taking a step back, it is damaging to our democracy first on the IRS part of this, that one family could be get benefits that the rest of, that everybody else the country does not in terms of avoiding tax scrutiny. And then the other piece of it, as you just say, it's January, potentially even January 6th rioters, convicted felons could stand to benefit from this fund, which some worry could pose as an incentive to act out again. Absolutely. I mean, the fund is absolutely.

lawful, which is why federal courts have blocked it, but it really does tell you what the president and his allies want, that they won't come out and stop it. And then on the IRS front, I mean, people know cheating and favoritism when they see it, and that's why this is so deeply unpopular with the American public. Our commitment at Democracy Forward on behalf of our clients and on behalf of the American people is that we will be in court every day fighting these battles and the courts and the lawyers are doing their job. We have blocked this fund. But it really is time for Congress. to do its job on behalf of the people. And there's really no excuse for this,

given that the vast majority of people, including people across the political spectrum, deeply disapprove of this self-dealing by the president. President and CEO of Democracy Ford, Skyri Perman, our thanks to you. We, of course, will be watching that hearing as it gets underway in a few minutes. Todd Blanche does seem on track to be confirmed

as Attorney General. But to Sky's point here, polls suggest Americans are not happy with these measures and are not happy with President Trump and the Republican Party right now. So they are significant underdogs as they head, they barrel towards the midterms this November. But President Trump, he still wields power of the executive branch, including the Department of Justice. We have seen him push for investigations from everything from his political foes like James Comey to a canoeist who picked up debris in the reflecting pool. So that's not going to change. We, of course,

will be watching that as well as results out of Michigan tonight. That does it for us this morning here on Morning Joe, but we'll see again tomorrow, 6 a.m. Eastern. Stephanie Ruhl picks up MS. Now's live coverage in just 90 seconds.